14 December 2009
Liberals are pissed at Connecticut senator, Joe Lieberman, for having legitimate opposition to the expansion of Medicare as a replacement for the "public" option. The anti-purity-test liberals of the Democratic base have declared the senator "Public Enemy #1" and have called on Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, to strip him of his committee chairmanship. Jane Hamsher, of Firedoglake, issues a "cease and desist" letter to celebrities calling on them to stop donating to Susan G. Komen's "Race for the Cure" organization where Lieberman's wife, Hadassah, is the spokeswoman (I wonder how many women will die of breast cancer if Hamsher's hair-brained scheme goes as planned...). These liberals act as if Lieberman had bamboozled Senate Democrats into thinking he supported their idea of "reform," and all of a sudden, had a change of heart. The problem is that Joe has made his positions known for quite sometime (It IS true that liberals believe history began this morning...).
This may be a stretch, but I find it amazing how liberals believe the US should ensure terrorist suspects are afforded every comfort known to man under the misguided belief that by doing so, they'll be nicer to us and leave us the hell alone, but are up in arms at their belief that Senator Lieberman will just not be satisfied. To me, the problem is not Joe Lieberman, it is the Democratic Congressional leadership who misread the results of the 2008 election. Senator Lieberman is the latest scapegoat for Obamessiah's agenda stalling in Congress. In a few weeks, there'll be another one. Democrats, as evidenced by their "gay rights" faction, can't seem to blame themselves for not being able to judge election results accurately...
Just a few days ago, between blaming Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell (R-KY), and Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Matthew Yglesias at the Toilet Paper factory, felt it was the "incoherent institutional set-up" in the US Senate that guarantees failure. Absent are Yglesia's posts about this faulty "set-up" during the Bush Years, when Democrats championed the filibuster privilege in an attempt to stymie the former president's judicial appointees and other items on his agenda. Oddly, this "incoherent" set-up didn't prohibit other presidents and previous congresses from passing laws. I wonder why the world's smartest legislators and president haven't figured out what their predecessors did a long time ago. It all goes back to a recurring theme, they misread the mandate...
Some Democrats in Congress are learning the lesson and have decided to call it quits, rather than suffer either a primary or general election defeat next year. I wonder if liberals will have the same feelings about congressional Democrats retiring four at a time, as they did about Republicans retiring before the 2006 elections. Liberals saw those retirements in 2006 as rats jumping from Bush's sinking ship, but something tells me that liberals won't believe that about themselves...it's 'cause they think they're smarter than you. Heck, if a so-called "public" option fails in the Senate, many Democrats will sit the election out anyway. From the looks of it, many Dems will be at home catching the six o'clock news then...so it's win-win.
It's nice to see confident Democrats now losing sleep at night worried about their congressional majorities. I say, shoulda worried about that while they were demonizing the Tea Party protesters and their constituents during the August townhall meetings...
Have a great day...
06 November 2009
Coming on the heels of liberals desire to continue being political ostriches, is the story that MoveOn.org is planning to primary Democratic moderates who don't care to return to the pot of ObamAid (Clutch the pearls!). The "Head Pat Media" wants the populace to focus on the non-existent "civil war" occurring in the GOP, while there's a bloodbath going on in the Democratic caucus. The idea that grassroots Republicans want conservatives to represent them seems problematic for the "Head Pat Media's" desire for a permanent Democratic majority.
My blogger friend, Zandar, decided to go after Allahpundit yesterday, claiming when Allah went after Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC), he was wanting to purge the GOP of dissenting views. Allah, in agreement with Ace at AOSHQ, emphasizes there needs to be a bridge between conservatives and centrists. I challenge a liberal to find a conservative who believes there's no room in the conservative movement for people who are center-right, like yours truly (Hint: You won't find one...). If Zandar and other liberals' premise about the GOP is correct, will they be able to explain groups like GOPROUD and Log Cabin Republicans? Of course not, as that will disprove the assertion.
I don't mean to give campaign advice to Democrats, but if we keep hearing deluded commentary like this, then 2010 will definitely be a mess for the Democrats. If the idea to make the GOP more palatable to the electorate is to become more like Democrats, it would be foolhardy for Democrats to push their moderates to the GOP. Sure, liberals will trumpet the poll which shows party identification for the GOP at 20%, but that has more to do with the GOP forgetting their grassroots, instead of the GOP becoming extremists. It seems the elections this past Tuesday has caused a rightward shift in the GOP, to the consernation of many Dems (Even the delusional crowd who puzzingly see Democrats increasing their majorities next year...).
Right now, there is a blood bath in the Democratic party over ObamaCare. Moderate Democrats, the ones slated for the slaughter by MoveOn.org, are up in arms over the public option being used to cover abortions (Even though liberals insisted that the Hyde Amendment would prevent such coverage, but in truth, it limits that prohibition to MediCare) and the certainty that whatever bill the Pelosi/Reid/Obama cabal agree to, will blow up the deficit. Instead of realizing the real threats, Democrats and liberals would rather focus on the NY-23 win this past Tuesday, to bolster the stupid claim that the Republican party is suffering from a civil war...and boo hoo over Tom Price (R-GA) preventing a congresswoman from "speaking" (Something tells me that John Aravosis wasn't too concerned about Republicans being literally locked out of deliberations during an investigation into Countrywide Financial...).
Don't you just LOOOOVE selective outrage coming from liberals?!
National Review has a list of 55 nervous Democrats, but remember...the "Head Pat Media" wants you to think it's only the GOP that has problems with moderates, when it's the moderates who have a problem with the conservatives...not the other way 'round. Democrats celebrated Arlen Specter's switch to the Democratic Party in March, while the rest of us felt he just made it official, as he had been courting Democrats for years.
Have a great weekend!
As I was leaving work yesterday, I learned of the tragic shooting at Ft. Hood in Texas. I prayed and continue to pray for the families of the fallen and wounded, as well as the victims themselves. I even pray for the shooter(s), because even they need comfort during this dark time. Though the shooter in everyone's focus, Major Malik Nadal Hassan, is Muslim, this should not be turned into an indictment of all Muslims.
Liberals, who jump at every tragedy and attempt to tie it to conservatives, are urging caution and are issuing citations at righties, whom they believe, have already convicted Major Hassan. According to several sources, Major Hassan, routinely expressed his disdain for the
"Cautious" liberals routinely overlook the obvious because they have difficulty in condemning truely evil acts when they occur. Let me explain. In the aftermath of September 11th, liberals issued citations to those who recognized that the murderers were extremists, who happened to be Muslim. Despite then-President Bush and other conservatives' insistence that our future contingency in Afghanistan would not be a reincarnation of the Crusades, liberals felt that we were, indeed, attacking Muslims for killing almost 3,000 US citizens. They felt we should inconvenience my 80 year old grandmother as much as we should a man or woman who buys flammable material, has no luggage, and carries a Qu'ran. They instead focus on another subject which, in many cases, is immaterial...like Major Hassan having PTSD, even though he never deployed to the Middle East.
Equally outrageous is President Obama's two minute wait to acknowledge the shooting (Silly fool, he had to get his "shoutouts" out de way ;-)):
Laura Ingraham calls it our first terrorist attack since 9/11...
More details will be forthcoming...you can follow updates here
Have a great day...
05 November 2009
There have been many a news item that transpired during my hiatus that I was itching to comment on. Unfortunately, the news is so old now that my comments are now irrelevant, but I have kept up to date with the issues and have often left little tidbits on my Twitter page.
First off, I would like to say that it is encouraging that the bloom has come off the Obamarose. People are slowly realizing that almost a year ago, 52% of the electorate voted for a guy who is clearly in over his head. The ObamaCare bill, now in its second incarnation, is still up for debate, Cap-n-Tax is stalled in the US Senate, and Iran is still playing Obama for a fool (Life is great, isn't it?). Republicans, who had been marginalized as a regional party in the minds of liberals, picked up two governorships, despite Obamessiah's reliance on his cult personality. Liberals would love to continue to spin those two elections as non-referenda on Obama's becoming the White House's Megan Fox, while championing a "pickup" in a New York district that hasn't seen a Democrat representative in 16 years. Oddly, the Republican and the conservative candidate, in that election, picked up more votes than the Democrat.
The idea was to show how candidates who ally with the Tea Party Movement will be on the losing end of any future elections. The same group that continues to portray legitimate criticism as "unpatriotic" claim that Doug Hoffman's loss in Tuesday's election was a referendum on Sarah Palin-style conservatism. Back here in the real world, the Sarah Palins, Rush Limbaughs, Sean Hannitys, Laura Ingrahams, et al, brought a virtual no one to within 4 percentage points of beating his Democratic contender. This is interpreted by many of the Beltway Republican types as a wakeup call to avoid choosing squishes like Scozzafava for future races. Of course liberals want the GOP to heed the advice of Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC) because they want to advance their agenda. They understand that the RNC nominating moderate squishes is a guaranteed win for Democrats. I would call on the RNC, the NRSC, and the NRCC to stop taking advice from liberals.
What happened Tuesday is causing some conservative Democrats to become skiddish about supporting the wishes of San Fran Nan and Pinky Reid. The nutroots are demanding congressional Democrats shove their unpopular policies down the throats of the electorate, because somehow these moderate Democrats should have the assurance that the White House and the DNC will have their backs come this time next year. I say, a congresscritter has to answer to their constituent...not Tim Kaine and Barack Obama. Democrats can ignore the results of Tuesday at the peril of their congressional majorities, which is fine by me. The people have spoken, just as they have time and time again. We all remember what happened when the Republicans ignore the will of the people in 2006, right?! Democrats still herald that result, like Rahm Emmanuel did about governors races in 2005 (Damn that Spirit of Spin Past).
Meanwhile, the Toilet Paper goes back to the meme that all Tea Partiers are crazy nutjobs...apparently, the Tea Party's strategy is working, if they can get all this consternation from Toilet Paper...
Have a great day!
20 August 2009
In one of my blogposts on MySpace, I said with great conviction, that I would ne-VUH, EVUH vote for Senator John S. McCain. I could not understand how he was so successful in the Republican primaries last year, especially since a majority of conservatives had shown him very little respect. I continued to be dumbfounded as my first prediction, second, and subsequent favs had all dropped out due to McCain's seemingly unstoppable machine. I was also watching the Democratic primaries, and hoping that Hillary Clinton would emerge victorious against one weak-willed candidate and a weaker-willed Glass Joe. If Hillary Clinton had won the Democratic primary, I'd vote a Democrat for president for the first time since 2000. Well, it was not to be and we had the fortune (or misfortune, depending on how you look at it) of having a media anointed "maverick" compete against the media anointed "Golden Child."
I joked with my coworkers that I'd be placing my finger next to Bob Barr, the Libertarian candidate for president, until Sarah Palin was named John McCain's running mate. Her speech at the Republican National Committee made me feel great to be an Amurican, in stark contrast to Barack Obama's, which apologized to the rest of the world for having been born in Amurica. I voted for Sarah Palin and her running mate in the hopes that her conservatism would keep McCain from further destroying his conservative bonafides. Again, my sinister plan was thwarted and Barry-O was victorious. I thought his choice to keep Robert Gates as SECDEF was a very good move, and would seek to provide him cover against conservatives who thought he'd foul up our successes on the "war" front. I also respected, and applauded, his choice to make former New York Senator Hillary Clinton, his Secretary of State. To me, she comes across as an advocate for strong national security, and an advocate for a tough, but smart, foreign policy. So far, from what it seems, and as Hanson reiterates, Clinton's mark on the office is being impeded by Obama's Apology Tours and the incessant number of policy czars and roving ambassadors, whose role usually fall to the Secretary of State.
I believe this move by Obama, outside of his effort to fool the electorate into believing he's a moderate, was to stymie another primary challenge from Clinton in 2012. I believe that if Obama's ratings continue to drop, he will have to do more than marginalize Clinton to prevent a more moderate Democrat from besting him in the primary. It is becoming clearer to the electorate that the moderate Obama they supported, is not the Obama occupying the White House. So far, it seems even liberals are willing to dump Obama, according to Ed Schultz, but not because they agree with Republicans, but that Obama The Liberal isn't being liberal enough.
Beneath all the hype surrounding ObamaCare, there is an issue on which conservatives seem to agree with Obama. His prosecution of the War on Terror in the Afghan theater is supported by more Republicans than Democrats, according to a February 2009Gallup poll. Democrats, on the other hand, now believe Afghanistan is not worth fighting anymore, which is not what we heard from liberals' wailing about Iraq. Between their calls for Operation Iraqi Freedom supporters to enlist, liberals repeated the charge that BushCo had taken their eyes off the ball by invading Iraq. While I think it's over the top to accuse liberals of being wimps on terror, it does seem that their opposition to Iraq lie in the fact that they opposed an issue because Bush supported it.
I was dogged in my support of Iraq and I will remain dogged in my support of Afghanistan. The more we keep the terrorists wondering if today will be their last, the safer our nation. The situation in Iraq looked bleak before President Bush announced the surge, and since then, the situation has remarkably improved. The same will occur in Afghanistan. Things get worse before they get better.
Have a great day...
Democrats in 2001-2008: Namecalling against your opponents is a sign of your patriotic duty to dissent!
I just want to get something out in the open. Death threats against public officials is wrong, and should not be tolerated by either side of the political spectrum. It should not matter whether a person agrees with the political ideology of a given official, but advocating murder is a crime and should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. By no means is what I am about to blog about a tu quoque logical fallacy, taken literally means "thou also," and means "since you guys started it, our side is justified in engaging in the same action." What I would like to point out is the hypocrisy we see coming from the Obamedia and their liberal hypocritical acolytes, who are whipped into a frenzy over death threats to Obama, but remained silent with death threats to his Republican predecessor.
I'm sure there were liberals out there who were calling on their ideological brothers and sisters to "calm down with the threats" (Oh wait, that was San Fran Nan to President Bush...) against public officials. If there were, they certainly weren't being heard through the blue blogosphere(According to USAToday, then-Senator Hillary Clinton called Death of a President "despicable"). In fact, in an unrelated story, liberals actually complained that the assassination attempt against former Vice President Cheney failed. Randi Rhodes was investigated for calling for the assassination of the former President (it should be worth noting that she was suspended from Err Amurica Radio, not for that, but for calling Hillary Clinton a "whore," so I guess a majority of liberals were okay with killing George Bush and Dick Cheney). The media portrayed liberals' advocacy of Bush's assassination as overblown, but as a threat to society in the Age of Obama. The people carrying guns to Obama events are racists, and the media will go through great pains to prove it like Mess-NBC did, while those threatening President Bush were everyday frustrated Amuricans.
Liberals love to lie and claim that protesters outside Bush events were arrested for wearing clothing that spoke unfavorably to the former president. Zombie at Zomblog calls out the lying liberals and states that oftentimes, the people dreaming for Bush's killing were never investigated, even when they explicitly or implicitly called for it. Based on his post, it appears those who had been arrested at Bush events violated federal laws by protesting in restricted areas or interrupting a speech and refusing to leave an area when asked. Since the media is hellbent on reporting every single threat against Obama in their campaign to portray conservatives as "racists," they should have pursued threats against Bushie with the same vigor, instead of yawning like they did at the 2000 Texas Republican Convention. That was my point, which seemed to be lost on liberals at The Reaction, that if liberals detest "hate-speech," they should detest all of it, not just the speech coming from their political adversaries (The same goes for the Right).
It is dishonest for liberals to continue whitewashing their antics over the past eight years in an effort to portray themselves as rational.
Have a great day...
19 August 2009
Feeling the heat from not only their constituencies and Congressional Republicans, Democrats seem hellbent on doing something to save their political asses for next year's midterms. It has been President Obama who made ObamaCare the keystone of his presidency, and by god, he's going to call on Congressional Democrats to get something on his desk before the year's out. According to the Politico, it has been Obama who's been adamant about excluding Republican alternatives to his ObamaCare plan. We recall during the Porkulus "debate," how Obama attacked GOP strawmen and Rush Limbaugh by telling the GOP that they had to stop listening to him in order to get things done...and that "he won."
The New York Times is reporting Senate Democrats are mulling the use of a 1974 Senate rule, "reconciliation," to force a simple majority vote on ObamaCare. Ed Morrissey notes the difficulty Democrats will experience if they decide to go this route. Meanwhile, liberals whine that it has been used by Republicans before, except in this case, a majority of the electorate don't support the legislation being considered for "reconciliation." I would presume that if Democrats went ahead with this, they'll pay a political price next year. A better strategy is to listen and seriously consider Republican proposals and cease with the demagoguery.
One can always deduce the motive behind Democratic attempts to ramrod this crap down the throat of Amuricans. Bloomberg is reporting that an ad agency that is creating ads to garner support for ObamaCare owes Senior White House Advisor, David "Astroturf" Axelrod, money and happens to employ his son. Don't expect liberals to cry foul, as they did when Halliburton received contracts for work in Iraq, claiming Cheney's involvement was a conflict-of-interest. Take a sniff...Democrat projection always has that funny smell. Who is it that Democrats claim are on the take again?!?!
It isn't only Republicans who are having drawbacks to this bill. Conservative Democrats continue to have problems with it, and their constituency is continuing to make them aware of their opposition. I'm willing to bet that if the so-called "progressive" wing of the Democratic Party mollified the more conservative members, they'll peel some Republicans as well. The more the bill seeks to placate leftists, instead of all Amuricans, the more willing the opposition feels determined to kill the bill.
It's not that Republicans had no ideas, it's just their ideas weren't considered...
Have a great day...
The collective senior fellows at Hillary Clinton-George Soros backed Media Matters for America have determined that the time for talking about ObamaCare has passed. Eric Boehlert compares the town hall protesters to the "discredited" Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, Jamison Foser claims that public policy is too complex for the ignorant masses, and John Santore whines about Sarah Palin evoking nuance in calling HR 3200, Section 1233, a prescription for "death panels." It must be hard to level criticism at people who are to blame for this mess, it's easier to project feelings onto someone else, not that it's a strange and new phenomenon coming from liberals.
Boehlert complains that the media is giving too much air time to the town hall protesters in the same way they gave the "discredited" Swift Boat Veterans (SBVT). First off, I'd like to make it clear that to liberals, the SBVT has been discredited, everyone else realizes Senator Kerry embellished his record during the VietNam Conflict. He says that the media never gave the same airtime to the anti-war movement during the Bush Years, but meanwhile back on Earth, there have been several times when the Obamedia scrubbed the radical positions of anti-war groups such as, Code Pink, I-ANSWER, World Can't Wait (Don't you all miss Sunsara Taylor?), to portray demonstrators as frustrated everyday Amuricans...and it was top news. Speaker Mimi chastised "disruptors" at health care town halls, clearly showing she had an epiphany in 2009, like other liberals who now view dissent as manufactured, but was essential in 2006.
Foser, like Yael Abouhalkah, shows his frustration over the Democrats' inability to win the debate on ObamaCare. Though he does level some blame on the Obamedia's unwillingness to tell the public about what's in the bill, his contempt for the town hall protesters is evident throughout his post. I admit, Foser is correct when he says the average person doesn't know much about history, science book, or the French they took, but I think Amuricans are smart enough to know a sham when they see one. Obama and Democrats took a great risk to ram this bill through Congress, with all its problems and expected no resistance. They expected Obama's flowery rhetoric and his "leadership" to bedazzle the electorate into believing that this plan would solve their healthcare woes. It's disingenuous to claim town hall protesters don't want debate, when Obama expected this bill on his desk before Congress broke for recess this month. h/t: Jonah Goldberg
Santore rounds out the trifecta by taking a swipe at Sarah Palin for her description of Section 1233 as a "death panel." Toeing the liberal belief that since the media and they, said it's not in the bill, let the issue rest, he goes after several prominent conservatives for pushing what he sees as misinformation and fanning the flames of fear, a tactic that was routinely used by liberals for the past eight years. Obviously, in Santore's world, not to mention in the minds of other liberals, it has been only been conservatives who are spreading so-called "lies" about ObamaCare and shutting down town halls and engaging in violent rhetoric. It should be clear to the rest of us that these liberals have been living in a bubble, or at best, don't believe their own words. It seems liberals are hellbent on continuing to spray vitriol all over legitimate concerns, despite the polls showing how ridiculous a strategy it is.
Liberals may continue to bitch and moan about Republicans appearing to cast the theory of bipartisanship to the four winds, but it has always been liberals, especially in the ranks of the House leadership, who has been hostile to each and every Republican proposal. Democrats are hoping the electorate doesn't become wise to their scheme, to reject Republican proposals and bitch because they won't support a solid Democratic bill. Who's the bipartisan here?
Have a great day...
18 August 2009
It's refreshing when someone inadvertently substantiates someone else's point of view. Usually, when I discuss an issue with someone, I try to stay on the topic at hand, up until the point the person I'm debating realizes they're losing and serves up a distraction. On a recent blog, I made the statement that the only thing I had seen from ObamaCare supporters were marginalization, demonization, and no rebuttals, and a response to that comment backed up my claim. The Supremes recently ruled that Troy Davis, convicted in the murder of an off-duty policeman, Mark MacPhail in 1989, is able to present evidence to prove his innocence. Upon finding out Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented, Mark Karlin declared them guilty of murder (Should I bother noting that he called Justice Thomas a "puppet"? No, silly wabbit, liberals can't be racists!).
I'm all for allowing defendants to present new evidence that supposedly proves their innocence, but demonizing Scalia and Thomas for noting how unprecedented it is for the Supremes to allow new evidence in a court case to trigger a habeas review, is highly off the mark. Davis never says that his constitutional rights had been violated, he's only calling for evidence to be considered to help determine his innocence. Scalia, nor Thomas, ever said it was ok for the federal and state government to execute an innocent man. Besides, it isn't clear that the evidence the court had been ordered to consider will overturn Davis' conviction. The idea here is, as it is with ObamaCare and Obama's policies, to marginalize those who have legitimate questions about Troy Davis' claim. h/t: publius at Obsidian Wings
Anti-death penalty advocates are using this case to show how disparate the application of the death penalty is. I don't necessarily have a problem with that, even if the Supreme's decision didn't address the issue of the constitutionality of the death penalty. The question at the heart of the decision is whether it is constitutional for a court to conduct a new trial for a defendant who was previously convicted, yet found evidence to prove he's innocent. The only ones who are able to make that determination is the jury or the judge hearing the case. Someone else tell Alex Koppelman...
If the new evidence exonerates Davis, good for him. The justice system prevails once again, but if it doesn't, the justice system prevails once again. Because a man presents new evidence does not exonerate him automatically, so I would caution those who are making Troy Davis their cause célèbre to wait until the new case is decided...otherwise, they'll continue to look foolish.
Have a great day...
DKos/Research2K recently released a poll that is being used by some liberal blogs as evidence that it is only the Right who's lying in the ObamaCare debate. The numbers, to me at least, indicate that not very many people understand what is in the bills that make up ObamaCare. They aren't hearing the truth from their Democratic congressional delegation, and they're not hearing it from the Teleprompter-in-Chief. If it has only been the Right who's been lying about ObamaCare, then the Left should have been quick to explain why the Right's assertions were wrong. The only thing I've seen ObamaCare supporters do is demonize, marginalize, but offer no rebuttals.
Expressing frustration over conservative Democrats' objections about the bill, blue blogger, Digby, calls on Democrats to oust the Blue Dogs from Congress because he believes they will never side with the president (then why are they Democrats?). Does Digby's finger-wagging indignation lie in his ignorance of the districts these Blue Dog Democrats represent? If Blue Dogs fail to represent their conservative constituents, then a reversal of Rahm Emanuel's 2006 and 2008 strategy will occur. Instead of siding with conservatism-lite, they'll go for the full monty and vote Republican. If Democrats decide to pursue Digby's strategy and campaign against say, my congressman John Barrow (D-GA), by placing an outright liberal in the primary, and he wins, the voters here will go Republican. Digby will have to kiss Obamessiah's "successful" legislation goodbye.
Roger Ebert weighs in on the questionable Section 1233, which mandates "end-of-life" counseling. One can draw similarities between this and the illegal immigration debates during 2006 and 2007. Opposition to government mandated "end-of-life" counseling is conflated to mean the opponents oppose all forms of "end-of-life" counseling, just as opposition to illegal immigration means opponents are "racists," that oppose immigration...oh, and "they hate Obama." No one takes issue with "end-of-life" counseling, when the government gets involved, by mandating it every five years, or sooner if a person is mentally ill, it gets people worried. No one who's railing against "death panels," save a few, have anything to say about that.
Seniors are worried, and are falling away from supporting ObamaCare, and the organizations who are hellbent on supporting it. Obama has proposed a cut to Medicare Advantage, which allows people under MediCare to pay premiums for coverage not available under their traditional MediCare plan (I bet liberals aren't going to call Obama out on that lie...). The only thing liberals seem to be focused on is making sure legitimate concerns are marginalized like kooks who bring guns to Obama greenhouse events. I stress that a majority of people are in support of healthcare reform, despite Obama and his acolytes' insistence of the contrary, they want ObamaCare to make our system more self-sustaining. How he intends to flood the system with his number, 47 million, and keep it "deficit neutral," is beyond me...and everyone else.
But it's only the Right who's lying...remember that!
Have a great day...
Liberals proclaim to the unsuspecting masses how much they care for the little guy. Minorities don't need to stand up for themselves, for the liberal will fight their battles for them. I'm reminded of a very funny episode of All in the Family, where the Bunkers are robbed by two black men, played by Cleavon Little and Demond Wilson. When the Bunkers arrive back home, they find out they've been robbed and become hostages of the robbers. In a discussion that breaks out, the robbers discuss their upbringing and soon discover that Archie is a "dyed in the wool bigot," and that his son-in-law, Mike, is a liberal, who called on Archie to understand the underlying social causes. The robbers chided Mike for talking about a subject he didn't understand.
GayPatriotWest talks about liberals who refuse to understand the fact that people have sincere concerns about their policies. Since liberal groups and protests are funded by the Wizard, they believe everyone else does it. There is always an ulterior motive to the "Tea Party" movement, the "Birthers," the town hall protesters, and the "Deathers." It's like the positions held by conservatives since dirt was new are now deemed "racist," because heaven forbid, there's a black man occupying the Oval Office. Under the guise of making corporate CEOs aware of the programs on which their companies advertise, liberals use what they, and no one else, find offensive to portray a television personality they don't like in a bad light. It's kinda funny when Rudy Giuliani, Laura Ingraham, and Michelle Malkin protested "Piss Christ," and Verizon's sponsorship of Akon after his Trinidad incident, respectively, liberals claimed a "chill" was felt over their right to free speech...
Liberals are gleefully talking about companies jumping ship from Glenn Beck's Fox News program, in light of his assertion of calling President Obama a "racist." Usually, when someone's called a "racist," it is liberals who are demanding someone's head on a platter. It was a marked policy shift for liberals to come out against alleged false charges of racism, after parroting that very belief since the Civil Rights Era ended. I would like to ask those liberals who are excited about sponsors pulling away from Beck, "what type of boycott moves their ads to another show on the same network?" and "since liberals are so adamant against 'hate-speech,' when are they going to start going after Keith Olbermann?" Their answers will reveal more than what they'd be trying to hide. One liberal responded to a comment I made on The Reaction that my blindness is preventing me from calling on a boycott of Keith Olbermann, thereby tacitly admitting that this boycott, and his support of it, is because he doesn't like the fact that Beck is conservative (I never knew liberals could be hypocritical...I definitely gotta get out more!).
Gateway Pundit has a post concerning Kenneth Gladney, the black man who suffered a beatdown from SEIU thugs for straying off the plantation, and a protest in front of the St. Louis branch of the NAACP over their silence surrounding the incident. The branch responded that no one contacted them to investigate, which is kinda silly, since they didn't need anyone to contact them on alleged disenfranchisement, or calling on the Cambridge PD to change its policies after Skip-gate, or deeming ObamaCare protesters as "racists." They just turn a blind eye to actual charges of racism, in the hopes of preserving the Democratic Party and its ideals. For if the US truly became a nation that has moved past its racial divide, it'd mark the end of the Democratic Party.
Something tells me that liberals are always looking for someone to replace Emmanuel Goldstein...
Don't you dare tell them thar liburls they're not smart!
Have a great day...
17 August 2009
James Carville was an integral part of the Clinton White House, so his latest claim, that forcing the GOP to filibuster ObamaCare would hurt them politically, is absurd. As I noted in a previous post, the 103rd Congress, that was debating HillaryCare, had more than enough votes to pass any and everything the liberal base wanted. No matter how many times Democrats tried to blame their failures on Republicans, the electorate refused to buy the spin. The major problem for HillaryCare lie in the former First Lady's refusal to listen to ideas that would make the bill better, the same is apparently true for Obama. His reliance on San Fran Nan and Pinky Reid to craft a "bipartisan" bill, knowing they're probably the most partisan people on the Hill, shows that he did not intend to compromise at all.
There is a brouhaha over former House Majority Leader, Dick Armey's assertion that the Soros-funded MoveOn.org ran two "Bush=Hitler" commercials in 2004. I would like to note that while MoveOn.org did not run the ads during Bushie's 2004 State of the Union address, they did condone them implicitly, since they did not condemn the comparison. With that said, I would like to focus on the ad that DID win the "Bush in 30 seconds" contest, which showed children who'd be stuck paying for the alleged $1Trillion deficit, created by the Bush Administration. As I type this, there is an "Obama in 30 seconds" contest (though I would like to assume that no "Obama=Hitler" connections will occur in the fuzzy minds of liberals). I am willing to bet that none of the winning ads will tie Obama to the skyrocketing deficit, if anything, they'll remind us how much in lockstep liberals are with Obama's wrongheaded agenda.
In fact, there are some liberals who are still excusing Obama for voting "present," when he should be out in the trenches, and blaming Republicans. Donny Shaw notes that the White House hasn't really put their full weight behind the "public option," and the president's reticence on it would make it that much more difficult to garner votes in the US Senate. The reason ObamaCare will fail will be the blame of Obama and Democrats, not Republicans and the Right. Jon Stewart, of Comedy Central's The Daily Show pretty much sums up left-wing talking points thusly.
I don't think that Glenn Beck, nor any other prominent conservative, believes our healthcare system is not in need of reform, contrary to Jon Stewart's assertion. I believe our healthcare system is the best in the world, BUT it should not be subjected to the type of revolution Obama and his acolytes wish to foist upon it. Liberals believe everything about the United States is eeevil and corrupt, and must fall in line with European dictates. There is no proof given by ObamaCare proponents that this bill will tweak our system, it will only degrade it, as many opponents fear. As I've always said, if the system being detailed in HR 3200 is the best thing since the iPod, members of Congress and the White House should subject themselves to it...but none of the ObamaCare proponents are talking about that. Instead, ObamaCare proponents rely on demagoguery to silence the bill's critics.
It seems that while liberals are demonizing the GOP for going back to 1994, they need to save even more vitriol for Democrats who are taking the debate there...
Have a great day...
The "Good" McCain writes in a blogpost about New York Times columnist, Maureen Dowd's latest obsession, Sarah Palin. I have to say that in the time Palin has been in the national spotlight, she's come across as a serious policy debater, much to the chagrin of her left-wing counterparts. She's still regarded as a "dumb hick" by many in the liberal blogosphere, who seem to still think that Obama is governing as a "post-partisan." Palin's focus on questionable portions in the House bill, H. R. 3200, shifted the debate from being spoon-fed Obama delusions about the legislation to the electorate asking their congressional representatives about said provisions. Soon, Obamessiah had to address Palin's assertions, although he fell flat on his face, and the US Senate is mulling whether to drop one or more provisions in their version of the bill, which could be misused.
So while Democrats and liberals continue to go after conservatives for asking the hard questions, they don't notice how the fumbling by the Obama Administration is helping to sink this ship. Very little of the ire coming from liberals focuses on Obama's modus operandi, which is voting "present," as being a major reason why this bill may end up being a watered down version of what they envisioned. They prefer, instead, to continue to push this notion that the protesters at town halls are paid members of the healthcare insurance lobby and pitchfork carrying listeners of Rush Limbaugh. Liberals see these protesters as opposing Obama the Man, and not protesting his policies, you know, like they did with President Bush...right? I would like to note that if liberals are going to start referring to the healthcare industry and ObamaCare opponents as "Swiftboaters," then they're admitting that the protesters of ObamaCare are at least on the right track.
Matt Taibbi, who recently accused Newt Gingrich of backtracking on supporting "end-of-life" counseling, when he did no such thing, writes in his latest post about feeling guilty by not lauding the accomplishments of the people he sees as wanting an actual
Fat chance, this is all to save the dear Obamessiah...Zandar told me so.
Have a great day...
No liberal better tell me they're smarter than conservatives ever, ever again. As more people continue to be appalled at the bills which make up ObamaCare, when they're exposed to the light, Democrats and liberals are still hoping that demonizing and marginalizing ObamaCare opponents will work. In one blogpost, Zandar, believes the opposition to ObamaCare, and his policies in general, is because of latent racism (while trying to convince people he's not calling them "racists"). A seemingly recurring theme on the liberal side is to portray the GOP as "happy with the status quo," even though a majority of the electorate, and the GOP, is not only "happy with the status quo," but are open for reform, not a takeover of the healthcare system. Democrats are hoping that the opposition we see in town halls all over the country, will turn into support in a few weeks (Ah, the faux outrage card). Based on that, it sounds like Democrats in the House will continue to push this crap over the objections of their constituents (when did that become a winning strategy?).
The president and Congressional Democrats are continuing to try and pull the wool over the eyes of their constituents. It's being reported throughout the blogosphere and the Obamedia, that the "public option," which would destroy the private insurance industry, may be on its way out the door, possibly picking a fight with the more liberal wing of the Democratic Party (but that won't be enough to keep them from voting for him if he decides to run for reelection...). This revelation prompted liberals to ask "Well, who IS Barack Obama..." (Shoulda listened to the Right and Hillary Clinton supporters, who were trying to tell you, instead of calling them "racists").
The idea that the "public option" is facing the knife blade is no reason to believe it will be gone for good. Since our Congress is made up of two houses, they must reconcile differences in various bills, then revote on the consolidated bill. The president receives the consolidated bill to sign into law. Usually, the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader name conferees to the committee, based on their support of certain provisions in the bills, and whether the bills lie in the jurisdiction of the conferee's respective committee. For example, Pelosi appointed David Obey, Henry Waxman, Charlie Rangel, Jerry Lewis, and David Camp to the conference committee during the Porkulus "debate." Once a bill, called a conference report, emerges from conference committee, they cannot be amended, they receive only an up or down vote. Nothing will prevent conferees from inserting the "public option" into a conference report. Folks, this battle is FAR from over.
It is common knowledge now that Obama has shown a lack of leadership during his presidency. He should have been the one pushing for
Have a great day...
13 August 2009
In the liberal mind, we're supposed to believe everytime they protest against some agenda, we're supposed to applaud them for their spontaneity. We were reminded throughout the Bush Years how everyday men and women were protesting the powergrab of the Bush Administration, but were supposed to ignore the Wizard behind the curtain funding all the protests. A recurring theme in liberal circles is the idea that granny and gramps protesting provisions in ObamaCare that limit their choices in advance care planning, are under a "Vulcan Mind Meld" instituted by talk radio titan, Rush Limbaugh, and Fox News personality, Glenn Beck. I had hoped liberals had learned not to attack Limbaugh, since Obama's numbers continue to fall despite them trying to tie Rush to the GOP, but it would be out of character for liberals to learn important lessons such as that.
Jon Taplin, at the liberal blog Talking Points Memo, goes after Limbaugh and Beck for their alleged "puerile" understanding of history. Taplin claims that National Socialism and socialism are not the same thing, and that Limbaugh and Beck should have attended more history lessons, instead of boozing. Taplin cites a passage from Richard Evans' The Coming of the Third Reich that the Nazis were indifferent to the inequalities of society and sought to remake German character by using the radio, and bitches that these hosts use call screeners to maintain the "echo chamber." That would be a clever assertion, except that all talk radio shows, right and left, use call screeners (Thank you, come again).
Both fascism and socialism are similar in the idea of spreading equality from the greatest to the least, and all must serve the almighty state. One of the symbols from Mussolini's Italy shows a fasces, a bundle of rods tied around a cylinder, which also included an axe, with the bundle showing how the people are one in support of the state. Nazism is similar to fascism in believing that democracy and capitalism were failures. Both Mussolini and Hitler wanted all the state to serve them, as they were authoritarian. Hardly different from what Obama and Democrats demand of the electorate today, by projecting their feelings about themselves on protesters to their agenda. In fact today, my friend Zandar, decided to post an article by Sara Robinson, of AlterNet, which has the gall to say the rise of the Birthers/"Teabaggers"/"Healthers" is indicative of the rise of the fascism phoenix or something.
One of the ways Sara calls on people to slay the Fascism Phoenix is to "shut down the hate talkers," which in laymans terms means, write letters to CEOs with edited clips of audio the person objects to in the hopes the CEO will pull their advertising, like Spocko did to Melanie Morgan. She also insists the "teabaggers must not win" the debate, because she views their protests as bullying (something tells me she didn't view the antics of liberals during the Bush years the same way...). It doesn't take Robinson long to invoke the "Conservatives = Nazi" card, which was off-limits when used on Obama, while calling on her readers to engage in civil debate. The problem, as I see it, is that Obama and Democrats expected no resistance to their agenda, and as they were when McCain announced Palin as his running mate, they were caught flat-footed...they don't like it one bit. As she's encouraging her readers to shut down the debate on ObamaCare, I call on mine to keep the pressure on legislators to explain why this is the best plan to reform our healthcare system, especially since the Congresscritters don't want any part of it.
Oh yeah...now Media Matters (when?) is up in arms about companies supporting Beck, Limbaugh, and Dobbs, while pulling their support from Err America Radio (Apparently in their search for so-called "hate-speech" from talk radio, they never bothered to tune in to Err America Radio. Do they not remember the good ole days of Randi Rhodes advocating the shooting of President Bush, or how Mike Malloy hoped conservatives offed themselves on live TV? Guess not...).
Our cause, opposing ObamaCare and his wrongheaded agenda, is just...don't let the intimidation by leftists force you to give up the fight in holding him and our legislators accountable...
Have a great day...
A recent poll by Gallup shows that Americans, as a whole, oppose gay marriage. The analysis also says that support peaked at 46% in 2007, and unless gay marriage advocates penetrate the more conservative areas of California, Prop 8 will stand. That's not set in stone, however. If advocates learn from the defeat of Prop 8 last year by looking inward, not by demonizing its opponents, I believe gay marriage will garner more support. I pray that gay advocacy groups learn to reach out to conservative supporters, and fire those who harbor deep seated prejudices against people who don't have a (D) behind their name. Once gay advocacy groups, and gays in general, get over the idea that all righties are homophobes, more people will sign onto their agenda. Hat tip: GayPatriotWest
As for my opinion on gay marriage, I'm on the fence, as I believe it is difficult to maintain a monogamous relationship between two males. They are biologically inclined to be sexual conquerors, never content with one conquest. At the same time, I've been in a monogamous relationship with my boyfriend for three years, and we plan to eventually marry and raise children. If the legislative process, not judicial fiat, allows for gays to marry, I'll support it. To me, marriage, as a concept, is a states-rights issue.
That's my opinion...what's yours?
Cross-posted at A Gay Day in GA
For a group of people who complain about conservatives seeing the world in black and white, liberals seem to form their arguments about health
In their pursuit to prove that Republicans don't want to compromise, Obama absolutists point to placards which depict President Obama as another reincarnation of Hitler, whose name is off-limits, lest the target be Republican (Wonkette believes that Lyndon LaRouche, a Democrat, is now a fringe Republican...or something), use singular episodes of a protester destroying a poster depicting Rosa Parks (more on that here), or make shit up out of whole cloth. The strategy is obvious, if liberals can get away with portraying concerned Amuricans as members of a fringe "I Hate Everything Obama" group, then they can silence other critics of this plan. In addition to all the other questions that remain unanswered by liberals in regards to ObamaCare, why are they so insistent on not holding debate? Was it ok to have our representatives vote on the bill without reading it? I wish the PATRIOT Act received the same consideration from them...
Ann Coulter mentioned on last night's Hannity that Republicans were ready to deal on ObamaCare. It was the Blue Dog Democrats on Henry Waxman's committee that prevented a bill from reaching the House floor before the August recess. That's important, because if Republicans would have given Obama what he wanted, despite the costs, Republicans couldn't adequately oppose Obama's agenda in the future, they'd be a party to it. Coulter suggested that there needed to be some housecleaning on both sides. Thanks to the Blue Dogs and the much maligned "teabaggers," this bill is receiving the sunshine it needs, and liberals don't like it one bit. Their actions throughout this debate makes El Rushbo's statement, about Democrats having to lie to convince voters to vote for them, all the more true.
As I said in the Porkulus debate, if Obamessiah wanted Republican support for his agenda, he wouldn't have excluded them from debate. He called on the Pelosi-Reid cabal to stuff Porkulus down our throats and whined that Republicans had nothing to offer. Though Democrats and their liberals allies would like everyone to believe it's only crazy-assed "reich-wingers" who take issue with ObamaCare, one particular liberal in the Obamedia has some concerns about the so-called "death panel" section, 1233. It'd be wise for liberals to note the concerns Amuricans have about the bill instead of parroting whatever comes from the White House, after all, as Ed Morrissey reminds us, Obama's never been to accomodating to dissent...
Have a great day...
11 August 2009
Liberals, and some conservatives, hammer former Alaska governor, Sarah Palin, for whatever reason. They dismiss her views as illegitimate and claim her rhetoric bars her from being a serious political analyst. Usually, the same group of people who demean Palin for some of her less than stellar comments, are the ones who've engaged in rhetoric that would make Idi Amin blush. Keith Olbermann's latest Speshul Komint, much like the one he gave after the passing of Prop 8, is being lauded by the usual groups as a takedown of Palin, as well as Glenn Beck. Olbermann went after Palin and Beck for using "dangerously irresponsible" rhetoric, yet remained mum on his "dangerously irresponsible" rhetoric that occurs daily on his show. Olbermann, and the liberals who believe he's "speaking truth to power," and have engaged in their own irresponsible rhetoric have no authority to counsel others about theirs. The sentiment shared by Palin, and several elderly members of the electorate, is not unfounded. They're being told that ObamaCare will create a new bureaucracy, which I erroneously said it wouldn't, and that it would have specific powers in determining which insurance policies qualify as Qualified Health Benefits Packages (QHBP). I should also note while Olbermann was giving a tongue lashing to Palin and Beck about reading the bill, he hasn't read it either...stating that there would be no Health Choices Commissioner, but he didn't read page 41. Say what you will about former Governor Palin, but at least she contributes something substantive to the debate, unlike Meggie Mac, who whines about not being taken seriously.
Meggie Mac writes in a post on The Daily Beast about a statement made by Michelle Malkin about which conservative personality should "shut up." I have said at least once that Meggie needs to stop engaging in catfights with people who are her ideological supporters and take her fight to her ideological enemy. It does her no good to engage in public spats with women who can mop the floor with her in an argument. She doesn't recognize her role as the Obamedia's real life Stephen Colbert, as evidenced by her appearance on Real Time with Bill Maher. The entire conservative movement, save Kathleen Parker and David Frum, welcome moderate conservatives into the debate to counter Obama and his acolytes. The problem with Meggie Mac stems from her idea that she's smarter than the rest of the people in the room, when she's clearly in over her head. Throughout the article, where she's bitching about Michelle Malkin, Laura Ingraham, and Ann Coulter for not being civil, the girl doesn't mind being a little snarky herself, taking shots at Malkin and Coulter's publisher, Regenery. Someone needs to tell her, AGAIN, that taking pot shots at prominent, and attractive women on the Right, to cater to the Left is not going to build trust among the conservative base that really don't trust McCains anyway...except for The Other McCain.
Have a great day...
It seems easy for liberals to play fast and loose with words, but that doesn't seem to faze some, who are upset that people are calling ObamaCare protesters "un-American." The only narrative we've heard from liberals about these town halls is how the protesters are united in opposing a black man, even when their congressman is a white male. Even an anchor on Mess-NBC tried to find a racist angle in the word, "socialism." Liberals can't seem to bend their head around the idea that people have legitimate policy disagreements, that do not translate into personal attacks. When I criticize Obama, Democrats, and Republicans, it's not because of their skin color, it's because I believe their train of thought is in the wrong direction. h/t: GayPatriotWest
John Dingell, the longest serving member in the US House of Representatives, recently stated in an interview on Mess-NBC that the protesters at these town halls remind him of the Ku Klux Klan. This is apparently the narrative we're going to hear from ObamAid drinkers for the next 3.5 years, that all our opposition will be solely based on the fact that Obama's black. For me, and I imagine a few other conservatives, we already knew Obama is black, we don't need liberals to continue to remind us of that. Conservatives don't care about labels, that's a liberal hangup. We oppose what Obama and Congressional Democrats have planned for this nation. I would like to remind liberals of their opposition to Condi Rice, Colin Powell, Janice Rogers Brown, Clarence Thomas, and a host of other minority conservatives and they flat out rejected the notion that their opposition was based on their race. Democrats have a history of fighting against equality for blacks and minorities, not Republicans.
Dr. Zero, at HotAir's Green Room, offers an interesting take on the narrative coming from Democrats. He recalls during the 2004 Presidential campaign, how Democrats tried to discredit the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth by calling them "discredited." They didn't note the ease in getting 14 people out of over 300, to sign on to the claim that Kerry earned his medals free and clear, without embellishing his military record. The other group, comprised of over 200, said the opposite. They expressed frustration at the inability to make the allegations from the SBVT disappear, and the mounting pressure to get Dan Rather to eventually recant his "Bush went AWOL 'scoop.'" He goes on to say that if you marginalize your opponent, as Obama and his acolytes have tried to do, Obama will enjoy significant support.
I am glad to see that people are undeterred by liberal fantasies about reliving the Jim Crow Era. I am glad that people are actually looking at their financial circumstances and seeing through the smokescreen being used by Obama and his acolytes. I'm surprised that liberals have not been convinced that calling protesters names like "teabagger" or "mob," is counter-intuitive, but then again, these people are always focused on how the kooks on the right will further alienate the rest of Amurica from the GOP, when liberals need to worry about mainstream liberals' continued alienation from the electorate. Joseph Palermo calls on Obama, and other Democratic pols, to hire MORE union thugs to issue beatdowns on an unruly electorate, that's asking too many damned hard questions (I'm sure that'll win them over...).
Have a great day...
Jay Bookman, not to be confused with Florida Evans' building superintendent from the TV series, Good Times, ridicules the "mob" in a blogpost for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, specifically talking about an article on the conservative website, Human Events which cites an editorial from Investor's Business Daily. His entire post centers on a paragraph which says that a person who has the same condition as reknown scientist, Stephen Hawking, who has Lou Gherig's disease, would not stand a chance in the British health system, based on the point-system used by the United Kingdom's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. The fact that Dr. Hawking still lives in the UK and and breathes there too, does not render IBD's criticism of the British healthcare system moot.
The section of the House Bill, 1233 (pages 425-430), which talks about "end-of-life counseling," or advanced care planning, has met the ire of not only SarahCuda, but several older men and women, who are concerned that the Obama Administration is advocating euthanasia. Based on my reading of the bill, it mandates a counseling session between the individual and their practitioner if one hasn't occurred in the past 5 years. It discusses several programs available to the individual, and makes plans for the patient if s/he becomes unable to communicate their wishes, due to health problems. These plans, between the patient and under the guidance of a trained healthcare official, are subject to change as the patient's condition deteriorates or progresses. It does not mention any bureaucracy being created to determine whether an elderly person lives or dies, it does mention the creation of a Health Choices Commissioner. In my view, the talking point coming from some on the Right about Obama's "death panel" is wrong. Keith Olbermann took Sarah to task recently in a Speshul Komint, essentially blaming her for any violence that may come from any future town halls. There was no Speshul Komint from Keith when he was comparing President Bush and Republicans to Nazis and Fascists. Also notably absent are Speshul Komints from Keithy over shenanigans by Code Pink and the anti-war movement.
That was the only thing about ObamaCare that I believe the Right got wrong. There are, however, more things about the bill where the Right's opposition would gain a little traction, like the costs. If the Right continues to hammer the expense into the minds of the electorate, this plan is toast. No plan by the White House, nor Democratic members in Congress, have been able to prove that revolutionizing 15% of the economy will be deficit neutral. When you start getting flak over the costs of the program, you can best bet the vulnerablility of the plan has been exposed. I've perused several left-wing blogs, who've spared no expense in poking fun at Kenneth Gladney, but they don't mention how much the program will cost over the longterm, and how the proposals used to pay for it, will not adequately pay for the expansion of the healthcare system. This seems to be an indication of how Obamists will plan to focus the debate on ObamaCare, and George Soros is waiting in the wings...
Obama holds a town hall meeting of his own today in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. He will be limited on what he can say about the bill, as it hasn't been finalized (not that it's stopped him before). The Obama White House is changing its strategery to reshape the debate on ObamaCare. They've released a new website at whitehouse.gov called "Reality Check," which serves as a ObamaCare Media Matters, of sorts, and shows videos of several members of the Obama Administration trying to "correct conservative misinformation" about ObamaCare (yea, that'll convince people...getting members of the White House to convince me the plan's well worth the anticipation. Liberals didn't believe "spin" coming from the Bush White House, but they want me to believe it coming from Obama? They really think I'm stupid...). Dorothy Rabinowitz has other thoughts...
Have a great day...
10 August 2009
I take a break from politics on the weekends, since I write so many blogs Monday-Thursday. Many of the issues I blog about on Mondays have generally been covered by the punditry before that time. One news item that I did not hear at all in the Obamedia is a story from St. Louis where members of the Service Employees Insurance Union (SEIU) engaged in a beatdown of an ObamaCare opponent, who also happened to be black. As predicted, there was no response from the race-pimping crowd (not that I was looking for one to begin with). The SEIU claims they were the victims in the encounter, but as Ace says, they don't offer a counterpoint to the events that happened. h/t: Kevin Jackson
I can't tell you how many times my white friends, that oppose Obama, are being maligned by my black friends, who support him. My black friends claim my white friends' disapproval is rooted in racism, after eight years of "slavishly" supporting former President Bush (I'm still looking for evidence of that claim). The intent is to browbeat whites into submission, similar to the rhetoric that emanates from the racists of the New Black Panther Party. Invoking the race card to demonize and marginalize opponents of Obama is a nice tactic, not ingenious, but it does not diminish the fact that his proposals are going to have a detrimental effect on this country for the long term. It's a good idea that we NOT give Obama time to sit by and allow this nation to go down the crapper. Obamabots may continue to be deluded into thinking that President Bush is still to blame for the deficit reaching $1.3Trillion, but their browbeating, and outright thuggery, will not silence me...nor anyone else. I don't mind being a martyr for my causes.
Another argument used by my black Obama-supporting friends is whether the people who are criticizing Obama will run for public office. I, indeed, have considered running for political office in the near future. Gwen Ifill's book, which I reviewed last week, gave me even more inspiration to run for office, Barack's rise to the presidency is commendable, as is Massachussetts' governor, Deval Patrick, but their times in office has not. I will stick my money where my mouth is, but the difference between Obama and I, is I'm not going to campaign for a job and bitch and moan because I was ill-prepared.
The reason why the Left believes their protests against Republicans and conservatives are authentic is because these groups are standing in the way of turning this nation into a statist and socialistic one. They pride themselves on trying to make regular, everyday Amuricans ashamed of being in the greatest nation in the world. There is nothing wrong with being patriotic, and proud of this nation. When she's threatened by forces domestic and foreign, I will stand against it. The oath taken by military members does not cover their enlistment or commission, for me, it's an oath taken for life.
They want you to keep quiet and allow Obama to invoke his agenda...don't allow them to get what they want! They're threatened and they don't like it one fucking bit!
Have a great day...
As Congress enjoys its summer recess, the details of the healthcare overhaul are being hashed out among the political class and the electorate. Passions are erupting on both sides, with many on the Right going after congressmen in, not only their districts, but others as well. On the Left, the sentiment they cherished throughout the Bush years, dissent, is being dismissed as manufactured by special interests, content with the status quo. Although throughout the buildup and the Iraqi campaign, liberals' talking points were very close to rooting for the enemy, they still had the right to dissent and disagree and those of us who critiqued their talking points made sure we stressed that fact. Unlike six years later, when Obama is pushing a healthcare bill designed to modify about 15% of the US economy, without allowing Congress time to debate it, liberals are calling the same sentiment they cherished so much during the Bush years, as "unpatriotic." Don't sit there confused, you knew it was going to happen...it should be no surprise that liberals often project their feelings on to innocent bystanders.
Throughout President Bush's term, especially after 9/11, liberals were whipped into a frenzy at the thought that he was going to take away their right to disagree. The Obamedia made sure to portray these dissenters as everyday men and women, who were upset at the way President Bush was "destroying this country." They gave them authenticity, even as evidence was uncovered that Hungarian billionaire, George Soros, was funding the entire thing. The contempt shown by the Obamedia and their friends on the Left, towards the protesters at town halls, exposes a recurring theme that has been evident since January 20, 2009, the inability to effectively use the screen to take pressure off the quarterback. One can only imagine the foaming of the mouths of liberals if the Right engaged in this type behavior.
I got the email from the White House that warned me about misinformation during the congressional recess, using one of the president's favorite plays, the strawman. A portion of the email said, "...[o]ver the next month there is going to be an avalanche of misinformation and scare tactics from those seeking to perpetuate the status quo. But we know the cost of doing nothing is too high..." I've said it before, and I'll say it again, no one...and I mean NO ONE, is perpetuating the status quo...at least in the United States. The thought that people who are not only satisfied with their care, are open to reform, but believe that this bill will degrade their care, is not perpetuating the status quo. They don't want what the government is selling right now, especially after Barry-O wanted very little debate on the bills, which currently sit in Congress...and after it was clear the president was talking out of his ass.
Debra Saunders from the San Francisco Chronicle, notes how one Senator, who isn't ashamed at reminding people who she is, went after former Secretary of State Condi Rice for not having any children serving in the Iraqi Conflict, and dismissed criticism of her remarks as "speaking truth to power." Fast forward to 2009, the same senator feels uncomfortable when others "speak truth to power." Even Speaker Mimi has joined the chorus of Democrats, who are being reminded of who their employers are, who claim these protests are not authentic, calling it "astroturfing," (leaving the rest of us wondering "what the hell is in the water in California?). Obviously, these people need to be reminded that this nation was founded on protests that were "organized."
Anti-war protesters beat their chests to show their bravado, and proclaimed they had no fear of BushCo. Their bravery led to some of the most irresponsible rhetoric we've heard from them, and their friends in Congress (I'm sure we all remember Pete Stark's famous speech...and the support it got among the nutroots.). In an op-ed for USA Today, Speaker Mimi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, call out the hanging of effigies, the tombstones, and shouting down members of Congress as "unpatriotic," and "un-American" (funny how none of this mattered when it happened to President Bush and Republican members of Congress...). Paul Krugman claims that no one hounded Republican congressmen during President Bush's push for Social Security privatization in 2005, and Jon Henke wants to remind you how wrong Krugman is.
Jake Tapper of ABC News, reports that the hated Congressional Budget Office has released a report that will continue to absurdify (I made a word!) the rhetoric coming from the White House about ObamaCare cutting costs. The response from Democrats in Congress and at the White House was predictable, upset the CBO never gives their proposals any credit. Liberals continue to berate ObamaCare opponents, but they never say a word about its proposed costs, and the fact that the president didn't want debate on this legislation...kinda like Porkulus, which still hasn't worked.
They're continuing to show nervousness as the underbelly of their agenda is exposed...
Have a great day...
04 August 2009
There is news that the 2010 census will, for the first time, include unmarried gay couples. To me, this is a step in the right direction, as I believe all citizens should be counted in the official census. This policy reversal should be celebrated by all, especially the White House, who in recent days needs all the positive news it can get. But, as James Withers says in the blog, it's typical Obama, in that all his policy moves occur below the fold. With a group that hasn't seen Obama embrace them fully, policies like this, that signify inclusion should cause Obama to move away from his modus operandi.
As I said upon Obama's inauguration, when the president is right, he will be praised. He should be celebrated for the moves he's made thus far on GLB"t" issues, such as extending benefits to the partners of GLB"t" federal employees, even if it doesn't go far enough. Though he still insists he's a friend of the GLB"t" movement, I believe the movement will alow him to punt only so many times (we're gonna have a problem if he goes through with repealing a ban on enlistment based on HIV status). The president should be used to acting "now" without waiting for Congress to act, or at least have time to read bills. Obviously, equality for gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and "transgendered" is not as high a priority as selling our future to the highest bidder.
Ok, I'm calm...
I call on the president to repeal "don't ask, don't tell" despite his belief that Congress must act first. He should use the bully pulpit, or the Blue Goose, to stand on the side of freedom (for once in his fledgling administration) and explain why this disastrous policy needs to be placed on the ash heap of history. Considering his reaction to the pleas of soon-to-be former 2LT Dan Choi, we already have our answer...
For the record, I disagree with Debbie Schlussel about the impending doom this extension of recognition will cause.
This marks my 100th post on Blogger.com...there'll be drinks and finger foods on the table in the back.
Have a great day...
I received an email from the White House a week ago telling me to be on guard against the misstatements surrounding ObamaCare during Congress' August recess. I was peeved that the White House has yet to give me a response to the issue I initially emailed them about (Gays in Iraq), and that they had the gall to send me this shit. Anyway, liberals are pissed off at a new photo of President Obama being photoshopped to look like the late Heath Ledger's rendition of the Batman villain, The Joker. The newsrag, LA Weekly laments that the Joker's garb never included a noose (awww...trying to go for "racism" for the win...). Does anyone else get the impression that ObamAid drinkers will go to great lengths to paint any criticism of Obamessiah as racist?
In my mind, this is different from my defense of President Bush during his administration. I, and other pro-Bushites, were defending him from incessant liberal attacks, comparing him to Hitler, Mussolini, and other over the top machinations. When conservatives answered and rebuffed the many hyperbolic comments of liberals, people like Secretary of State Clinton squawked the following:
“I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic, and we should stand up and say, ‘WE ARE AMERICANS AND WE HAVE A RIGHT TO DEBATE AND DISAGREE WITH ANY ADMINISTRATION!’”
I guess liberals remain confused in their worldview. This is not King Louis XVI's France or Charles I's England, where dissent was treated as a threat against the state. Or, they may be confused about what actual protests are, instead of bitching for the hell of it. I think it has less to do with griping and complaining about a photoshop of Obama, as was evidenced throughout Bush's years as president, as history has shown (Oh lookie, President Bush also has a picture of him as Heath Ledger's Joker, do liberals think that's racist too?), and more to do with liberals' frustrations over their inability to effectively defend Obama's agenda, as we saw with Behar's moral equivalence to the Bush Administration on yesterday's episode of The Spew.
Media Matters (on occasion) had the gall to try and convince people not to believe their lying eyes when a photo of Obama standing in front of Professor Gates, who was being helped by Sgt. Crowley, by pointing to Obama's bow to Saudi King Abdullah earlier this year. The Media Matters post has now disappeared down the cyber memory hole, to cover up their embarrassment. You can tell a person's character by the way they treat their mothers, and old people. The photo, which is below, tells you all you need to know.
Bill Sammon tells a story in Strategery about a time when President Bush went to Chile and one of his Secret Service agents was caught behind the Chilean detail. The president reached through the detail to bring his Secret Service agent closer to him. John Kerry, on the other hand, during a ski trip during the campaign of 2004, blamed an accident he had on his Secret Service agent. There is also a photo of President Bush helping an ailing Robert Byrd, I presume after Senator Byrd referred to the Vick dogfighting saga as "barbaric."
Now to the photos...
You be the judge...
Have a great day...
As the Wall Street Journal article says, "Joe the Plumber's vindication draws nigh." I doubt Sam will get the apology due him by Helen Jones-Kelly, the Ohio DFACS, Democratic Ohio governor Ted Strickland, and liberals who thought it was racist when Obama's tax philosophy was inadvertently revealed on the campaign trail. The Wall Street Journal reports that Treasury officials are scrambling for ways to pay for their pet projects. Soaking the rich will not bring the deficit to manageable levels, Democrats hoped that crap-n-trade would raise enough revenue, but that went up in smoke after businesses pressured Democrats to give up $646B in proposed revenue. There is no other choice but to soak the middle class, which is feeling a small brunt already with the increase in cigarette taxes.
One of the means Democrats and Obama Treasury officials are mulling is an adaptation of the European style "value added tax," or VAT. European officials, according to the WSJ, love this tax because it raises so much money with little notice from the taxpayer. According to its Wikipedia entry, the VAT, in contrast to sales tax, is "neutral with respect to the number of passages that there are between the producer and the final consumer." Michigan had a similar tax, called the "single business tax," or SBT, but it was repealed last year by the Michigan state legislature, approving a voter-approved initiative. I wonder if this example, like the government-run healthcare
While liberals bend steel, run faster than locomotives, and leap tall buildings in single bounds trying to protect their dear Obamessiah from criticism, back on Earth, people are not happy. In fact, there are increasing numbers of protests to ObamaCare, and other Obama pet projects. Not learning anything from their attempts to demonize and marginalize the Tea Parties, liberals are claiming that conservatives are "hijacking" the meetings these congressmen have with their constituents. My friend Zandar (who I believe has no relation to the ally of COBRA, the enemy of GI Joe) believes they're ambushes (way to channel the Mike Stark, my boy...), and in one post, Zandar compares it to *gasp* "terrorism" (Hide the damn children!)! Here, yet again, Zandar and liberals blame the GOP and conservative groups when the ire of their hateful rhetoric should be directed at Democrats, who have yet to come up with a final bill (I wonder if dodgeball is a fan favorite of liberals...).
I think the thing being overlooked by the self-proclaimed smarter-than-you crowd is the fact that there is no plan to pay for the
You see when Democrats and their anti-war liberal friends were ambushing Republicans, it was genuine...nowadays, it's terrorism. That should show you that we're on the right track.
Ladies and Gentlemen, Keith Olbermann...fresh off vacation!
Have a great day...